Re: Regional Rankings

Originally Posted by Fishman'81

Elbo, you used the "debacle" word -might be a bit of an overstatement- but not too far off the mark. The D-3 field is just too small to have nearly 70% of it automatically rewarded, don't you think? And I explicitly cited UC's ghastly SOS... Not sure we have an argument here.

.

As opposed to football, where IIRC just 5 of 32 bids (what, 16%?) are true at large, hockey is in a better spot...

Re: Regional Rankings

Originally Posted by NU Pastime

Best is so subjective. It's what I hate about the current College Football Playoff. The most deserving should be rewarded. For most teams (Non-Pool B, DIII hockey is a bit unique in that regard) the shot at the NCAA tournament js clear: win your tourney. It's fair for everyone. And if the SUNYAC champ is really so much better than the MASCAC champ (for example) then they get rewarded by playing an inferior opponent at home in the first round.

"Best" doesn't have to be subjective... There are reasonable, objective, metrics out there that make a whole lot more sense.

Example: when D-1 football did it that way -with an objective ranking- there was a great hue and cry when TCU won its last game, but slipped out of the top-4... Thing is, they were overtaken by another team (don't remember who, Baylor?) that also won its last game, and vs. a much better opponent. (SOS.)

That's just sound statistical analysis, not a beauty-contest, and I don't see what's wrong with that.

Re: Regional Rankings

Originally Posted by PSUChamps2001

And as I've said since the days of time, you will NEVER get the "12 best teams" with a restriction on games able to be played. Especially cross region. No KRACH system can fix that. Not with so many teams in DIII. On top of that we should probably go back to a best of 3 game series for the Quarter Finals, Semi Finals and Finals. I mean hey, if we want the "best" teams in, we better make sure the "best" team wins.

Secondly, while I semi agree that the ECAC NE was an "unworthy" conference to receive a bid, let's play devils advocate here. If I told you 10-15 years ago Lebanon Valley would finish tied for 2nd in the defunct ECAC West, UNE would be a top 5 Team in the NATION, Endicott is playing hockey, and Salve Regina is more than just a funny name to say, you would have laughed yourself to the ground. Those same ECAC NE teams/Conferences that you carried on about 10-15 years ago are now some of the best teams in DIII. If you don't think having that auto bid was a MAJOR factor in that,.......

Now before some get all upset and in an uproar, it takes MORE than having an auto bid to make a competitive team. The school has to WANT to do it. So no, the auto bid isn't the ONLY reason these teams went from the laughing stock to a competitive contender, but it has a major roll IMO. I was actually right there with you years ago as I fell DIII doesn't have the numbers to support so many weak AQ's. If every conference was like our "Power 5's" then yes. DIII has too many "weak sisters" who just putting a team on ice is an accomplishment.

The fact of the matter is, complaining on a message board and thinking your opinion matters to the NCAA gets you no where (not you in particular elbojpb). The NCAA will not change their rules for sports because hockey is "different". I'd love to see a 16 team field, AQ's and Pool C bids, 40 game seasons, 3 game series, and more cross over games. But I've come to the reality you will not change the NCAA. The coaches don't care/want it. The AD's don't care/want it. So why should we think just because we want it, we will get it? The process, while not perfect, is nearly predictable these days. There is a reason why people like Webb and Ray pretty much nail the teams every year lately. When you understand the process, accept the process, and live with the process, its not hard to see. Instead, some people would rather ***** and complain and cause more confusion when it's pretty simple to see who is in, why, and who is out, and why.

Sorry, end of rant. Cheers.

So, you say bend-over and take it, because there's no way in the world the process can possibly be made more equitable, owing to the fact that the D-3 hockey by-laws were something Moses brought down from The Mount, and are completely immutable..?

Re: Regional Rankings

Originally Posted by elbojpb

I've pounded on the AQ since last century, specifically those awarded to the ECAC/NE and MASCAC. On play-in night on this board, I've nearly lost my mind a couple of times, fortunately, the board upgrade erased all those posts.

But, the NCAA doesn't want the best teams in the nation, they want to spread around the recognition and host a tournament of champions. It's their game and their call, but I'd personally prefer the 12 best teams.

"Never doubt that a small group of dedicated, committed people can change the world; indeed it's the only thing that ever has."

Re: Regional Rankings

Originally Posted by PSUChamps2001

And as I've said since the days of time, you will NEVER get the "12 best teams" with a restriction on games able to be played. Especially cross region. No KRACH system can fix that. Not with so many teams in DIII. On top of that we should probably go back to a best of 3 game series for the Quarter Finals, Semi Finals and Finals. I mean hey, if we want the "best" teams in, we better make sure the "best" team wins.

Secondly, while I semi agree that the ECAC NE was an "unworthy" conference to receive a bid, let's play devils advocate here. If I told you 10-15 years ago Lebanon Valley would finish tied for 2nd in the defunct ECAC West, UNE would be a top 5 Team in the NATION, Endicott is playing hockey, and Salve Regina is more than just a funny name to say, you would have laughed yourself to the ground. Those same ECAC NE teams/Conferences that you carried on about 10-15 years ago are now some of the best teams in DIII. If you don't think having that auto bid was a MAJOR factor in that,.......

Now before some get all upset and in an uproar, it takes MORE than having an auto bid to make a competitive team. The school has to WANT to do it. So no, the auto bid isn't the ONLY reason these teams went from the laughing stock to a competitive contender, but it has a major roll IMO. I was actually right there with you years ago as I fell DIII doesn't have the numbers to support so many weak AQ's. If every conference was like our "Power 5's" then yes. DIII has too many "weak sisters" who just putting a team on ice is an accomplishment.

The fact of the matter is, complaining on a message board and thinking your opinion matters to the NCAA gets you no where (not you in particular elbojpb). The NCAA will not change their rules for sports because hockey is "different". I'd love to see a 16 team field, AQ's and Pool C bids, 40 game seasons, 3 game series, and more cross over games. But I've come to the reality you will not change the NCAA. The coaches don't care/want it. The AD's don't care/want it. So why should we think just because we want it, we will get it? The process, while not perfect, is nearly predictable these days. There is a reason why people like Webb and Ray pretty much nail the teams every year lately. When you understand the process, accept the process, and live with the process, its not hard to see. Instead, some people would rather ***** and complain and cause more confusion when it's pretty simple to see who is in, why, and who is out, and why.

Sorry, end of rant. Cheers.

Remy, over the years you have said plenty of stupid things on this board. This statement is not one of them

Re: Regional Rankings

Originally Posted by PSUChamps2001

... If I told you 10-15 years ago Lebanon Valley would finish tied for 2nd in the defunct ECAC West, UNE would be a top 5 Team in the NATION, Endicott is playing hockey, and Salve Regina is more than just a funny name to say, you would have laughed yourself to the ground. Those same ECAC NE teams/Conferences that you carried on about 10-15 years ago are now some of the best teams in DIII ...

Champs ... your entire post was extremely well stated.

Ironic that the parity that the AQs have introduced into D3 hockey, and the emergence of certain teams and conferences has quite likely come at the expense of the teams that you and I both support, in addition to M'bury.

Yes .. institutional support and coaching play a part, but I believe the AQs were certainly partially responsible for the decline at others. There are (unfortunately) only so many quality American players to go around in this era of NCAA foreign scholarship scrutiny.

Re: Regional Rankings

Originally Posted by GB Puck Fan

D3 football. It’s a D3 thread so I made a presumption.

Indeed. Some leagues in FB such as the ECFC aren't ever really a part of the conversation except to give a scrimmage to the team they are paired against. NU won the EcFC a couple of time and got smoked in the NCAA first round.

Re: Regional Rankings

Originally Posted by PSUChamps2001

But losing to an unranked Fredonia team will be better than losing to a ranked Geneseo / Buff State

Oswego fans need to root for Hobart. The D3.com analysis gives HOBO a pool C spot, and a loss by Norwich pushes HOBO into a Pool A spot and frees up one of those Pool C spots, which won't go to Norwich, who is currently unranked.

But losing to an unranked Fredonia team will be better than losing to a ranked Geneseo / Buff State

But no chance to pick up another needed win...if Freddy wins it all I really believe you are done and Genny would have a better chance at C....it all depends on everybody else too. There will be more teams than ever with 5 or more losses this time !

Re: Regional Rankings

Originally Posted by Fishman'81

So, you say bend-over and take it, because there's no way in the world the process can possibly be made more equitable, owing to the fact that the D-3 hockey by-laws were something Moses brought down from The Mount, and are completely immutable..?

Okaaaay.

Maybe I missing something in your argument, but why do you think hockey is being treated differently than any other sport (save D1 football)? Every sport has a national tourney of conference champion AQs, then a selection of at-larges. And that always generates debate because someone, by definition, is left out

Re: Regional Rankings

Originally Posted by GB Puck Fan

Maybe I missing something in your argument, but why do you think hockey is being treated differently than any other sport (save D1 football)? Every sport has a national tourney of conference champion AQs, then a selection of at-larges. And that always generates debate because someone, by definition, is left out

Again, if there's going to be AQ's awarded -and yes there are- let's go with the RS champs (a la FCS football) for the sake of evaluating much more data, then eliminate Pool B and award the 5 AL's on the basis of a statistically credible metric. I could live with that.